IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lic/licosd/19607.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Antidumping Protection and Productivity of Domestic Firms: A firm level analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jozef Konings
  • Hylke Vandenbussche

Abstract

We analyze the relationship between Antidumping (AD) Protection and the productivity of EU domestic firms in import-competing industries. For this purpose we identify a panel of domestic firms between 1993 and 2003 that at some point during this period are affected by AD initiations. Using a difference-in-difference approach, we find that AD measures result in improvements of measured productivity for domestic firms. Total Factor Productivity (TFP) of protected firms increases by 2% in the short-run and by 5% to 13% in the long-run. However, there is substantial heterogeneity across firms. The effect of protection depends on the initial "distance-to-the-frontier firm?in the industry. While protection raises TFP of "laggard?domestic firms, it lowers TFP for "efficient?firms that operate close to the efficiency frontier. These results are consistent with recent theoretical work supporting the view that trade policy, under certain conditions, can induce technological catching-up. While this paper evaluates the effectiveness of AD policy it does not engage in a welfare analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2007. "Antidumping Protection and Productivity of Domestic Firms: A firm level analysis," LICOS Discussion Papers 19607, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    • Handle: RePEc:lic:licosd:19607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/licos/publications/dp/dp196.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van Biesebroeck, Johannes, 2008. "The Sensitivity of Productivity Estimates," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 26, pages 311-328.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    3. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 1995. "Closing the Technology Gap under Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 755-770, September.
    4. Robert C. Feenstra & Gordon H. Hanson, 1999. "The Impact of Outsourcing and High-Technology Capital on Wages: Estimates For the United States, 1979–1990," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 907-940.
    5. Vandenbussche, H. & Zanardi, M., 2006. "The Global Chilling Effects of Antidumping Proliferation," Other publications TiSEM 862b5259-3d37-48e6-b645-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Niels, Gunnar, 2000. "What Is Antidumping Policy Really About?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 467-492, September.
    7. Marc J. Melitz & Giancarlo I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 4, pages 87-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Thomas J. Prusa, 2021. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Thomas J Prusa (ed.), Economic Effects of Antidumping, chapter 2, pages 1-20, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feen97-1, March.
    10. Matsuyama, Kiminori, 1990. "Perfect Equilibria in a Trade Liberalization Game," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 480-492, June.
    11. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    12. Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Do safeguard tariffs and antidumping duties open or close technology gaps?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 469-484, March.
    13. Jacques Mairesse & Jordi Jaumandreu, 2005. "Panel‐data Estimates of the Production Function and the Revenue Function: What Difference Does It Make?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(4), pages 651-672, December.
    14. Harrison, Ann E., 1994. "Productivity, imperfect competition and trade reform : Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 53-73, February.
    15. Feenstra, Robert C. (ed.), 1997. "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226239514, March.
    16. Benjamin H. Liebman, 2006. "Safeguards, China, and the Price of Steel," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(2), pages 354-373, July.
    17. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    18. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    19. Bruce A. Blonigen & Thomas J. Prusa, 2001. "Antidumping," NBER Working Papers 8398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Robert C. Feenstra, 1997. "Introduction to "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies"," NBER Chapters, in: The Effects of US Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 1-7, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Gunnar Niels, 2000. "What is Antidumping Policy Really About?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 467-492, September.
    22. Haijime Katayama & Shihua Lu & James Tybout, 2003. "Why Plant-Level Productivity Studies are Often Misleading, and an Alternative Approach to Interference," NBER Working Papers 9617, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Strategic Interactions in Markets with Innovative Activity: The Cases of Strategic Trade Policy and Market Leadership," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b06, November.
    2. Jan Van Hove, 2010. "Variety and quality in intra‐European manufacturing trade: the impact of innovation and technological spillovers," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 43-59.
    3. Jan Van Hove, 2010. "Variety and quality in intra-European manufacturing trade: the impact of innovation and technological spillovers," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 43-59.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2008. "Heterogeneous responses of firms to trade protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 371-383, December.
    2. Jozef KONINGS & Hylke VANDENBUSSCHE, 2009. "Antidumping Protection hurts Exporters: Firm-level evidence from France," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2009017, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    3. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2013. "Antidumping protection hurts exporters: firm-level evidence," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(2), pages 295-320, June.
    4. Jabbour, Liza & Tao, Zhigang & Vanino, Enrico & Zhang, Yan, 2019. "The good, the bad and the ugly: Chinese imports, European Union anti-dumping measures and firm performance," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-20.
    5. Pierce, Justin R., 2011. "Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: Evidence from U.S. manufacturers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 222-233.
    6. Hylke Vandenbussche & Maurizio Zanardi, 2008. "What explains the proliferation of antidumping laws? [‘Antidumping Laws in the US; Use and Welfare Consequences’]," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 23(53), pages 94-138.
    7. Jan De Loecker & Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Amit K. Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik, 2016. "Prices, Markups, and Trade Reform," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 445-510, March.
    8. Eslava, Marcela & Haltiwanger, John C. & Kugler, Adriana & Kugler, Maurice, 2009. "Trade Reforms and Market Selection: Evidence from Manufacturing Plants in Colombia," IZA Discussion Papers 4256, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche & Linda Springael, 2001. "Import Diversion under European Antidumping Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299, September.
    10. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2011. "Infant industry protection and industrial dynamics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 37-47, May.
    11. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2002. "Does Antidumping Protection Raise Market Power? Evidence from Firm Level Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 3571, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Rosario Crinò & Paolo Epifani, 2009. "Productivity, Quality and Export Behavior (Revised version of: Firm-Export Intensity and Productivity, September 2011)," Development Working Papers 271, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    13. Christian Darko & Giovanni Occhiali & Enrico Vanino, 2021. "The Chinese are Here: Import Penetration and Firm Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(12), pages 2112-2135, December.
    14. Kagitani, Koichi & Harimaya, Kozo, 2015. "Safeguards and voluntary export restraints under the World Trade Organization," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 29-41.
    15. Yukiko Sawada, 2017. "The effect of technology choice on specialization and welfare in a two‐country model," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 1104-1129, November.
    16. Greetje Everaert, 2003. "Technology Adoption under Price Undertakings," LICOS Discussion Papers 13703, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    17. Idrisova, Vittoria (Идрисова, Виттория), 2017. "Determinants of Value-Added Exports: The Role of Import Demand Factors [Детерминанты Экспорта Добавленной Стоимости: Роль Факторов Спроса На Импорт]," Working Papers 051715, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    18. Patricia Augier & Olivier Cadot & Marion Dovis, 2013. "Imports and TFP at the firm level: the role of absorptive capacity," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(3), pages 956-981, August.
    19. Jan Baran, 2015. "The impact of antidumping on EU trade," IBS Working Papers 12/2015, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    20. Bena Jan & Ondko Peter & Vourvachaki Evangelia, 2011. "Productivity Gains from Services Liberalization in Europe," EERC Working Paper Series 11/15e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Total Factor Productivity; Antidumping protection; technological catching-up;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • C2 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lic:licosd:19607. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/licosbe.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/licosbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.